Being labeled as an asshole often plagues those who find themselves in the Natural Parenting niche.

In the natural/attachment/progressive/whatever-term-you-fancy parenting community, our passion is often times our own Achilles Heel in respects to overstepping boundaries and putting our foot in our mouths, albeit this problem festers deep within the mainstream just as much (have you seen some of those facebook pages, yiiiiikes).

No matter who started what or who the bigger ass is, I bring this issue up because I sincerely believe that we (the natural community) can begin to alleviate this problem between mainstream and alternative because we we are the ones advocating the value in attachment, respect and unity.

I think often times we don’t consider what other parents are experiencing because we are too busy (or simply refuse) to stop, look outside our own little bubble and, most importantly, value someone else’s choice.

I get it, breastfeeding – hey, you nailed it (me too), and if you had difficulties you pulled up your big-girl britches and dealt with it…and don’t even begin to mention the ethical concerns surrounding circumcision, the research reinforcing the detrimental effects of spanking and theblah blah blah ….

I agree these issues are important and my heart is engulfed in the same advocacy, my friend. But there should be some reverence for the life another human being is actively choosing to live.

This doesn’t mean we will understand it nor does it mean we must validate it or approve it. Another person’s life is not up for our approval in the first place.

The bottom line is we must be more diligent in respecting the choices others make.

Generation X, Attachment Parenting and Over Compensation

I’ll be the first to admit my guilt of totally saying things before I think (who hasn’t?).

Hi, my name is Amanda and I’ve totally been an ass.

At times, maybe I’m quick to be offended…other times I’m quick to offend.

With everyone fixated with social media and publishing their opinion on pretty much everything (hey, myself included), we are flooded with perspectives that are different for our own every minute, every day.

From a sociological perspective, parents my age belong to a cohort that was molded by Nintendo, daycare, star wars and divorce.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing (Star Wars is pretty damn awesome), however according one study, our generation “went through its all-important formative years as one of the least parented, least nurtured generations in U.S. history”.[*][*]

This piece of knowledge married with a bit of Psych 101: What is unhealed from your own childhood will reveal itself when you have little tots of your own.

And viola – attachment parenting is birthed (naturally, of course).

Don’t get me wrong – again, I love the tenants of attachment parenting, the foundation of progressive parenting, and the community of natural parenting. I live by them, just like you (and write about them too).

I suspect that some (okay, many?) natural parents today may be fueled by a strong desire to do a better job at parenting than their parents did (I know this rings true to me). Again this isn’t a bad thing either.

However, where our natural community severely veers off tract is in two aspects (maybe more, but these are the two that I found myself affected by):

(1) given the crack-pot job some of our parents did (and the majority of other parents embracing mainstream choices in parenting), we are left with a real lack of constructive role models to go about showing us how to be a sufficient parent….leading often times to over-compensation…and hence, unwittingly acting like an ass.

(2) We see other children crying it out, formula fed by choice, rode in strollers, fed crap food – and subconsciously maybe we feel like if we help them, then we are helping our own childhood-self in some way. Because as children we cried it out, was fed junk food and left feeling a real lack of affection – and we didn’t “turn out just fine”.

It’s not all about being a product of divorced, overworked parents and latchkey programs.Maybe every generation simply has unresolved issues with itself.

Recognize and become familiar with your own tendencies to act callously toward others (no one is perfect and we can all improve treating others better). Hopefully, this list this will give us a great advantage to recognize (in yourself and in others) douche-bag propensities - and with any luck, stop giving other natural parents a bad name.

Step 1

Become an expert on something, anything – you pick.

Counter-step: Focus on learning and as soon as you think you know something entirely, your jerk-alert should go off.

Bonus Tip : You know, the more alternative parents get a real bad rap for this (aka santimommy), but if you think this is the only group of parents acting like a bunch of assholes, then you are poorly mistaken. No one is immune to falling prey to this step.

Bonus Tip: No matter how thoughtful you are with your words, at some point in time you are likely to offend someone – fact is, there are people out there scouring the ends of the Earth to be offended. The best you can do is to placeeffort into saying things with kindness and coming from a place of love.

Good luck!

Step 3

At every chance available to you, declare other people’s incompetence.

Counter-step: I know, this step is hard especially if you are learning about your own tendencies of overcompensation. No one is perfect and not everyone wants your two-cents on the subject. You may get burned a few times to eventually learn which of your friends appreciate your unique perspectives. Appreciate other’s point of view too and find value in it.

Bonus Tip: If a friend posts a picture of her child in the car, please refrain from commenting that the child in not properly restrained followed by links to carseat safety and video on youtube of the benefits of extended rearfacing. While I agree there is value in information – consider talking to her off record or send a private message.

Step 4

You have a small list of close friends and a long list of enemies which you are equally proud of.

Counter-step: True, you can’t get along with everyone and its not your business to make everyone like you – but better yet, give your attention to that which you support and love, not that haters.

Bonus Tip: We’re all in this together, my friends. You can’t get rid of hate with hate, only love can do that.

Parents in the Natural community have another platform to push now – the one that unites us: mainstream and alternative.

United we can accomplish a better future for our children, better then we can ever imagine.

An advertising campaign slogan seemingly designed to promote fear rather than actual evidence-based decision making about the potential benefits of the HPV vaccine.

When one takes a hard look at the scientific evidence, the more you may consider the sheer lunacy of the vaccine.

A Quick Recap

The What, Who, When and Where

The first HPV vaccine was added to the recommended routine childhood immunization schedule by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2007.[*]

This vaccine is given as a series of three shots over 6 months - two vaccines (Cervarix and Gardasil) are currently approved and available for administration in the US.[*]

Out of 130 different types of HPV, nearly 30 are transmitted via sexual contact, 15 of which are oncogenic (may progress to tumor formation). Gardasil vaccinates against HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18.[*]

HPV vaccination is recommended for all girls age 11 to 12, with "catch-up" doses for girls and women from 13 to 26 who haven't been vaccinated (there are no booster recommendation as of yet).[*]

Both vaccines are available for females. Only Gardasil is available for males (recommended ages 11-21).[*][*]

Of this entire post, the information in this section may be the most profound to the reader.

Based on data collected from 2008-2010 from Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (published by the National Cancer Institute), there is a 0.66% chance your daughter will be diagnosed with cancer of the cervix at anytime during her life.[*]

It is of extreme importance to recognize this point when reviewing this data:

2010 Discovery Medicine Journal

At this time, protection against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 (CIN 2/3) is 5 years for Gardasil and 8.4 years for Cervarix.[*]

If your daughter receives an HPV vaccine at the recommended age of 11,protection will have waned by age 16.

The data collected from the above agency confirms approximately0.0% deaths from cervical cancer under age 20.[*]

What is "one less" then 0%?

Pap Smears

The Saving Grace Against Cervical Cancer

Cervical cancer used to be the leading cause of cancer death for women in the United States. However, in the past 40 years the number of cases and deaths of cervical cancer have decreased significantly (as review in the previous section).[*][*]

This decline is attributed to regular Papanicolaou (Pap) tests, which has the ability to identify cervical precancerious cells before it turns into cancer.[*]

According to published data (2010 Discovery Medicine Journal), HPV vaccine efficacy must last at least 15 years to contribute to the prevention of cervical cancers. At the current time, protection against is at best 5-8 years.[*]

It is critical that parents and young women are given a full explanation of the importance of continued cervical screening and the real efficacy of the vaccine against cancer prior to administration.

Protection from Cancer

Real or Imaginary

The published data from clinical trials for both Gardasil and Cervarix appears to indicate 100% effectiveness against HPV-16 and HPV-18.[*][*]

That's pretty damn amazing.

However, you must understand that the conclusions of the HPV trials are based on clinical data extrapolated from a set of surrogate markers.

Now, this isn’t anything novel. Since disease progression is slow in the case of cervical cancer (20-40 years), it is more practical to use certain surrogate endpoints to measure a clinically meaningful outcome which will shorten the time required to complete the clinical trial.

However, these surrogate markers must be carefully assessed to maintain that they accurately measure what they are theoretically measuring - this is the essential piece in determining whether or not any meaningful clinical benefits can be expected from the HPV vaccine.[*]

The surrogate marker used in the clinical data to measure cervical cancer reduction was a reduction in cervical dysplasia (CIN1-3).

Cervical dysplasia refers is abnormal changes in the cells on the surface of the cervix that are seen underneath a microscope and are understood to hold the potential in progressing into cervical cancer (most often seen in women ages 25 – 35).[*][*]

To answer our question, we will have to understand the progression and regression of HPV infection and Dyplasia.

HPV infection is common, occuring in 1 out of 5 women. 90% of HPV cases will resolve within 1-3 year without any intervention, less than 8% of HPV cases will screen positive for cervical dysplasia (CIN I – III).[*][*]

Of those women who do test positive for CIN I, a review of literature from 1950-1992 illustrates a 1% progression rate to invasive cancer due to the high frequency of natural regression in CIN I and CIN II. [*][*]

It is insurmountably clear that the surrogate markers used in the clinical data are insufficient in determining the true long term benefit of a prophalytic vaccine against cancer caused by HPV infection due to the benign nature and high frequency of regressionof cervical dysplasia. [*][*]

In the natural course of cervical cancer, only a very small fraction of CIN I lesions will progress to CIN II and, from there, only a small fraction of CIN III will eventually progress to cervical cancer.

The incidence of HPV infection and the incidence of cervical cancer should not be considered equal since cervical cancer will not develop in most women who are infected even with high-risk HPV infections. [*]

The HPV vaccine to-date has not prevented a single case of cervical cancer, let alone cervical cancer death. Nor has the HPV vaccine improved the diagnosis of cervical cancer. [*]

"One less" of what? Clearly, not cervical cancer.

Safety

Is it Worth the Risk?

"Your daughter could be one more"

You may find yourself asking if it is even appropriate to risk any adverse effects to apreadolescent girl for a vaccine that is (1) only theoretically proven to prevent a disease that (2) she only has a 0.66% risk of developing over her lifetime – WHEN THE SAME CAN BE PREVENTED WITH REGULAR PAP SCREENING. [*][*][*]

Safety concern 1 - Exacerbate cervical disease

One poignant aspect to address regarding safety is the potential in the HPV vaccine to actually enhance cervical disease.[*][*]

If a young lady is sexually active prior to receiving Gardasil or Ceravix, it is possible that she may already be infected with the HPV. This is alarming due to rate of enhancement in cervical disease in the trial data.

Gardasil’s pre-licensure data observed an efficacy of -33 to -44.6% in women who were already exposed to HPVs targeted by the vaccine. [*][*]

An in a recent publication (2012 AJOG), high-risk HPV infection was diagnosed more frequently in vaccinated women than unvaccinated women (6.2% versus 2.6%).[*]

Safety concern 2 - VAERS

Another point worth addressing regarding safety is the adverse events reported after vaccination to various governments worldwide.

Wait, now - I fully recognize that a passive vaccine surveillance system does not prove causation between vaccine administration and an adverse reaction – However, since 2006, nearly 65% of all deaths and life-threatening reactions reported to VAERS from Gardasil or Cervarix alone. [*][*]

A total of 30,020 reports have been received by US VAERS including 2,574 hospitalizations, 9,114 ER visits 93 deaths.[*][*]

82% of cases resulting in permanent disability in females under 30 years of age was attributed to HPV vaccines. [*]

According to the FDA, thromboembolic events (blood clotting) are reported in a higher frequency from Gardasil then with other vaccines. Girls who are using oral contraceptives are at an increased risk, as well as those who are overweight and smoke.[*]

In contrast with the HPV vaccine, a pap test which uses a speculum to obtain cells from the cervix does not carry a risk of death, autoimmune complications or neurological dysfunction. And to the best of my knowledge, the procedure (LEEP) used to remove high-grade CIN II and CIN III lesions do not carry these risks either.

Safety concern 3 - AAHS Placebo Group

Currently, there are no regulations governing placebo composition, even though data gathered from placebo groups greatly influence trial safety outcomes, conclusions and policy recommendations for public use. [*]

The pre-licensure safety evaluation of Cervarix did not provide a saline solution control group to compare adverse outcomes.[*]

The aluminum-containing placebo group provided data on injection-site adverse reactions which resulted in 2-5 more ADRs then the saline placebo.[*]

However, in spite of the data gathered from injection-site ADRs, the manufacturer (Merck) pooled the results from the study participants who received the saline solution and the aluminum containing placebo to present as one ‘control’ group for systematic autoimmune disorders and serious reactions. [*]

The data reported in the package insert resulted in Gardasil having nearly the exact same rate of serious reactions as the “control” group (data of aluminum + saline combined). [*]

Clinical data that is inadequately designed cannot be used in a reliable mannerto evaluate the safetyof any drug.

The safety outcomes published for HPV vaccines with the use of an AAHS control group (versus a saline solution) produces false negative data and any meaningful conclusion becomes absent. [*]

The inadequate design of safety data is a reflection of the authority and influence the pharmaceutical industry maintains over the evaluation of its own products and publication its data. [*]

The Push for School Entry Mandate

Manufacturers influence on Policy

It may be appealing to consider that governmental policies involving vaccines are protected by the influence of private pharmaceutical manufacturers; however, there is a symbiotic relationship between the two.

However, this marriage is not inherently corrupt. Pharmaceutical companies provide informational resources and potential policy strategies to legislators and health department officials for many medical products, not just vaccines.

Nevertheless, the role that Merck & Co Inc played in legislation following the FDA 2006 approval of Gardasil seriously lacked appropriateness in vaccine policy.

The vaccine manufacturer aggressively engaged in direct lobbying, drafting specific legislation, presenting unrestricted grants - in most states, focusing on school mandates.One specific instance, Merck financially contributed to a national nonprofit group Women in Government (WIG) which pioneered a “legislative toolkit” containing model school-entry mandate legislation.[*]

The culmination of Merck’s direct lobbying was witnessed in Texas after Governor Perry issued an executive order mandating HPV vaccination for eligible preadolescent girls. The vaccine manufacturer quickly abandon engaging the issue once the public became aware of its role in contributed funds to the governor’s re-election campaign and that his chief-of-staff had worked for years as a lobbyist for Merck.[*]

It is best to acknowledge that vaccine manufacturer’s hold a unique place in policymaking. Government employees and legislators must be ever vigilant to identify that information presented may not be the same as a disinterested party – one that holds interest in selling a pharmaceutical product and securing a population that requires it.

Common Sense and HPV Vaccination

Conclusion

Parents making decisions about HPV vaccination on behalf of their young daughters must be fully informed of the real benefits against cancer when adding HPV vaccination to ongoing screening programs.[*]

To date, there is no data confirming HPV vaccines preventing or treating any cervical cancers. The large majority of HPV infection (and a great proportion of Cervical dysplasia) clear spontaneously without medical intervention, what indicates the surrogate markers in pre-licensure trials were an unreliable indicator of the number of cervical cancer cases that have been/will be prevented by the vaccine.

When reviewing the information on the HPV vaccine, I struggled to understand how parents (and girls old enough to consent themselves) are able to make a fully informed decision on whether to consent to Gardasil/Ceravix if critical information on safety and efficacy is not being presented to them.

Disclaimer: The information contained on this blog is for educational and informational purposes only, and is not to be construed as medical advice. If you have any specific questions about HPV vaccination, HPV disease or cerivical cancers you should consult a professional healthcare provider. The decision regarding whether or not to vaccinate is a personal one.

New guidelines (released Dec 2012) from The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) state that most women need a Pap test every 3 to 5 years, rather than annually. However, if a woman is sexually active, they still recommend a yearly screening.

Scientists now know how HPV is transmitted, how few infected women develop cancer, and how slowly cancer develops. Because of the improved method of testing and collecting, new research and technology, the researchers are confident that getting regular, but less frequent, Pap tests is a safe option for women.

New Pap smear guidelines

• Pap smear tests should begin when a woman turns 21

• Women ages 21-29 should get screened every three years.

• Women age 30 and up can be screened every three years.

• After age 65 or 70, most women don't need a Pap smear test.

(Women who have certain risk factors and health issues, regardless of age, may need more frequent screening. This includes women who have HIV/AIDS, are immunosuppressed, were exposed to diethylstilbestrol (DES), or have been treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or cervical cancer.)

The value women place in HPV vaccines in conjunction with continued pap smear exams will be viewed differently by different women. Physicians' ethical duties are to provide full explanation of the risks and benefits of adding HPV vaccination to the ongoing screening programs, and to support women in their personal choice for cervical cancer prevention.[*]